United started the game strongly, with Paul Scholes picking up where he left off against Newcastle, and Darren Fletcher making dangerous forward runs to link up with the front two. Dimitar Berbatov was also involved in a lot of United’s best play, dropping deep off Hernandez, to either pass the ball into Fletcher’s path, or knock it back to Scholes to create from deep. A Berbatov-Fletcher combination almost created a good chance in the first ten minutes, before United went ahead – Berbatov laid it back to Scholes for a long-distance daisy cutter into the bottom corner.

Fulham responded well to the goal, however, with their best moves coming from Zamora drifting into Fulham’s right-hand channel, where he dragged Jonny Evans out of position, as left-back Patrice Evra not comfortable enough in the air to contest high balls with the new English international. United’s problems in this position were compounded by Simon Davies playing narrow and high up the pitch, connecting with Zamora and getting into a couple of decent goalscoring positions early on.

Etuhu runs

United seemed to have particular problems dealing with the forward runs of Dickson Etuhu – perhaps because they were so unexpected. Under Hodgson, Etuhu played a very defensive-minded role, remaining solidly ahead of his back four and rarely looking to combine with the strikers. Today, however, he frequently got into the box, and should have equalised after half an hour, but for two decent saves from Edwin van der Sar.

The second major point of interest was Fulham’s use of wingers. Under Hodgson they were ‘inverted’, with Davies on the left and Damien Duff on the right, but today they started on their ‘natural’ sides. This remained the situation for the majority of the first half, but at half-time Hughes ordered them to switch – Duff going to the right, and Davies to the left.

These players combined – through Zamora – for Fulham’s equaliser. Duff produced great bit of skill to get past Evra, who had got too tight to his man, and passed the ball forward for Zamora. He got to the byline, slowly cut the ball back, and Davies was able to come onto the ball perfectly on his stronger foot, to smash the ball into the net.

United changes

United were creating much less in the second period. Ferguson switched three of his front four around, with Berbatov remaning as the pivot for the other attackers to work around. Valencia, Park and Hernandez made way for Nani, Giggs and Owen, and United had a brighter spell – with Nani providing more attacking threat than Valencia or Park had done from wide positions.

But Fulham created a golden opportunity in the 80th minute, when Zamora’s knock-down was inches away from finding Etuhu at the far post. Again, United had completely failed to track the Nigerian’s run into the box, as Scholes let him run straight past him. Etuhu had a good game overall – as well as being a goal threat, he was also very reliable in possession, as the Chalkboard below shows.

United were still failing to create decent chances, however, and they were rather fortunate that Hangeland turned the ball into his own net on 84 minutes. The penalty award on 87 minutes was debatable and lead to Stockdale saving Nani’s effort – and that missed penalty was the only shot on target United had in the final twenty minutes of the game.

Tactics largely went out of the window in the final spell, but Fulham got their equaliser when Hangeland rose to head home a Duff corner. United had defended poorly all game – the midfielders didn’t track runs, the full-backs weren’t as solid as usual, and Vidic was fortunate not to give a penalty away for a shirt pull. They simply allowed Fulham too many opportunities to get back in the game, and eventually one was taken.

Conclusion

A classic Premier League game – that’s to say it was end-to-end and extremely exciting, but there wasn’t a tremendous amount of tactical detail. The two key points of interest both came from Fulham – how Etuhu (nominally the most defensive-minded midfielder) kept popping up in goalscoring positions, and how the use of inverted wingers caused United more problems than ‘natural’ wingers.

United often start reasonably slowly – this is the fourth consecutive season they’ve failed to win both of their opening two games. To let a lead slip twice in one game is very unlike United, and they have been troubled by the use of two big, powerful strikers, in Andy Carroll and Bobby Zamora. This was a fixture they lost last season, for which United can blame the makeshift back three of De Laet-Fletcher-Carrick, but they didn’t defend that much better today.

Worth pointing out that Vidic was culpable for Hangeland’s equaliser too. Left his man to challenge Aaron Hughes who was already being dealt with. Worryingly erratic performance by himself and Evans, who was utterly dominated by Zamora.

vincent on August 22, 2010 at 7:20 pm

i was impressed by the way zamora played today. he held the ball really well, won many aerial battles and was very composed.

me too vincent, although i think all teams will have the same problems against him – from what i saw he looked unplayable.

with united chasing a winner after fulham’s first equaliser, i was surprised o’shea stayed on at right back. davies worked so hard to double up on valencia and then nani, and that meant the player with the most space on the pitch for united was o’shea. unfortunately for them, he was also the player least able to use that space effectively.

surely, rafael might have done better. i know o’shea is solid and reliable, but with united pushing for a winner i would have taken him off and left giggs or owen on the bench.

kenny on August 22, 2010 at 7:38 pm

United chose to place their more forward moving midfielder and wide playing winger on the right, whilst Park moved centrally with Evra playing the wing on the left. They had width on both sides of the pitch that way, but O’Shea ended up having quite a few opportunities moving forward.

shivam on August 22, 2010 at 7:29 pm

can u explain why vidic wasnt asked to challenge zamora aerially???? i mean evans does prefer the left side but its not unusual for a left footed player to play right centre back, specially when fulham played with only one forward and evans was gettin killed against zamora!!!

kenny on August 22, 2010 at 7:35 pm

Fulham and Zamora specifically chose Evans to go at. It’s easier for the offensive team to choose those battles with positioning and passing. Zamora certainly won more than he lost. He isn’t much of a finisher, but with Dempsey and Davies hovering around, he is pretty useful as the classic England center forward.

Yeah, it’s a bit chicken-and-egg. But even if Vidic had switched sides with Evans, Zamora could have just wandered over to the other side…

Selen Vinland on August 22, 2010 at 7:43 pm

Zamora’s transformation into a top class striker is one of the more surreal things to happen in football in recent years. He was almost out the door at Fulham 12 months ago, and is now an England international. Another fantastic performance from him today against a shaky-looking Evans.

Patches on August 22, 2010 at 10:59 pm

Top class is pushing it a little isn’t it? He is a very good player these days, but top-class? You’ve been playing too much Demon’s Souls sir.

DC on August 23, 2010 at 2:08 am

top class for sure, patches. he and dickson etuhu(among every other fulham player, really) made fulham’s season last year, for me at least. it wasnt shown in any of the highlights, but the two of them held that side together like crazy glue. when you can control the middle of the pitch as well as they did, it opens up the whole rest of the team for movement off the ball. its sad they arent appreciated that much but i think if you put those two players at a fluid-moving team like arsenal(zamora at least, song/diaby play similar roles to etuhu), youve got the perfect mix when you play the more defensively structured teams that they had trouble with. zamora’s problem has always been his finishing but id attribute that to his lack of a role in past years. it seems like these past 2 seasons, when he finally became a dominant back-to-the-goal CF, i think it balanced out the rest of the game and he learned to finish rather well, row z be damned

i really agree with selen, though– it is surreal, having watched him a few years ago– his confidence has gone through the roof. the hodgson magic touch, i say

granted, this is all my opinion, but ive watched lot of fulham games

Patches on August 24, 2010 at 3:48 pm

I suppose you’re right. I don’t see that many games, and watch mostly highlights, and so you don’t see Zamora’s hard work off the ball, but even so. I’d hesitate to call him a top class striker. Very very good player, and one I’d value if he were in my team, but would he be capable of playing for one of the big European sides?

Mani on August 22, 2010 at 8:42 pm

The clear difference between Chelsea and Man Utd at the moment is the form of players. Chelsea players are in the form of their lives, whereas Utd are rusty as always at the start of the season and will take time before they kick on. I guess the credit has to go to Ancelotti for getting the best out of his players, but now we have to play catch up.

Also I like the picture of formations much better in this match. I cringed when Andy Gray said something like “they’ve gone like for like with 4-4-2’s”. I would say Utd’s formation with Park playing is something of a 4-3-3 morph. Park is a machine who will run everywhere, outnumbering the opposition in areas where Utd have the ball but is generally quite central. Valencia is much wider and further up the pitch. Berbatov plays deeper and has a free role. When Giggs and Nani came on I’d say it was a 4-2-3-1/4-4-1-1, with Giggs being a natural winger.

Hannibal on August 22, 2010 at 9:18 pm

The clear difference between Chelsea and Man Utd at the moment are their run of fixtures.
Chelsea couldn’t have had it easier with their fixtures against West Brom, Wiigan, Blackpool and Stoke while United’s first away game was against Europa League finalists….

I don’t think Chelsea could have done better than United did tonight but for Nani’s inconsistency, the game would have ended 3-1. It’s still early days. Fulham deserved their point in the way they rallied round after Hangleland’s own goal.

Until SAF demotes O’Shea permanently, United’s right wing will continue to suffer. Young Rafael would have decimated Fulham’s left tonight with the ocean of space begging to be exploited but O’Shea is too technically inept to make it count.

joebloggs on August 23, 2010 at 6:10 pm

Why cringe?

Maybe Andy Gray having played professionally, been coached professionally, and been an assistant manager/coach professionally, actually knows the difference between a formation and the patterns it exhibits? Maybe Andy Gray understands the base point for formations and how they are coached hence his description as a 442?

It’s not rocket science to watch a football match and see what is happening so this armchair condescension towards TV pundits is completely ridiculous. He describes it as a 442 simply because when United defend Park is looking to defend on average where an ML in a 442 would do. How he moves when United attack is a pattern of a 442. Come in narrow at these moments, provide some width at these moments, etc. Those are not defined as formations when being coached (or defined in order to allow for coaching) at a fundamental level, they are defined as attacking patterns of a base formation. Which base formation you interpret it as has a lot to do with perspective and many ‘formations’ overlap considerably in terms of the ‘attacking patterns’ they are capable of producing.

I’m not arguing about what you are describing re Berbatov/Park, just stating that Andy Gray calling it a 442 does not mean he does not see the same things you do. He has a perspective based on his professional experience and for you to think you somehow have a higher ‘football IQ’ and use a derogatory verb like cringe only shows ignorance on your part.

Karl K on August 22, 2010 at 9:17 pm

An excellent game, very entertaining and a just result. Zamora is brimming with confidence now and I think Fulham are going to be a handful this year. Their midfield is very strong and as you noted Etthu makes telling runs that can really unhinge a back line. Even though they ceded possession to ManU, they always seemed a threat and were creative in advancing the ball. You wonder though if the rigors of the season will catch up to oldsters like Murphy and Duff, but if they can stay healthy and fit, they could could make every team they face nervous.

Meanwhile, you really see how much ManU miss Rooney.

I continue to be amazed at Paul Scholes high level of play when Man U is on the attack. He really takes charge in the center and makes telling pass after telling pass. Even his tough touches seem to go right for him. However, as noted, he can be weak defensively and he does have the tendency to foul needlessly.

Bottom line — as Rooney goes, so goes ManU. A top 4 finish is all but assured but winning the league seems again unlikely.

Hannibal on August 22, 2010 at 9:27 pm

United have scored 8 goals in 3 games this season, Rooney isn’t among the goal-scorers.
The team can do without Rooney. Today’s match had nothing to do with Rooney’s absence. Fulham were fantastic and i remember Rooney playing in the same fixture last season and in 2008/9. United LOST both games emphatically!

Karl K on August 22, 2010 at 10:10 pm

“The team can do without Rooney.” Hmmm….wonder how Ferguson would react to that statement?

Though Berbatov started the game brightly, the forward play degenerated over the course of the game as both he and Herandez became less effective. Until Ryan Giggs came on, most of the second half attack consisted of crosses and long balls into the box from the right.

So, no, they can’t do without him. Sorry.

Hannibal on August 22, 2010 at 10:36 pm

The forward play did not degenerate because Berbatov/Hernandez weren’t good enough. The forwards simply had no service from the midfield.

O’Shea offered nothing as an outlet for Valencia and Park was largely ineffective(Nani should have started). Berbatov was very much involved in the thick of things and Rooney’s presence wouldn’t have changed anything.

Fulham defended very well and they deserved their point. Rooney played against the Toon army and he didn’t offer much. This deification of Rooney must stop.

Johnny on August 23, 2010 at 1:04 am

Personally I think Fulham are going to be the best team after the big 5(Chelsea, Arsenal, Man U, Man City, Liverpool) this year

ryan on August 22, 2010 at 9:29 pm

How do you draw the formations for the articles? Do you use MS word/how do you do it?

ye on August 22, 2010 at 11:09 pm

Unbelievable how ManUtd started to release the pressure on the ball after the goal. They just leaned back and let Fulham come into the game. Not the best idea if you’re defensively not at your very best.

Steveholt on August 23, 2010 at 1:08 am

Nice to see the match analysis back ZM.

as one comment, and I know that formation designations are … well in the eye of the beholder but..

I agree with you that Fulham are at present sticking with shapes very similar to what what they played under Hodgson, specificlly 4-4-2/4-4-11 with inverted wingers for the most part. This is mentioned by yourself in the europa league match report you linked in this article

”Fulham’s side was unchanged from the first leg, with the exception of John Pantsil coming in for the suspended Chris Baird. The formation was the same – 4-4-2 with inverted wingers, and Zolan Gera playing close to Bobby Zamora, who was declared fit to start.”

So why do you refer to fulhams shape today as a 4-2-3-1, while saying it is the same as the 4-4-2 used v hamburg??

I understand the vague nature of numerical description systems, i understand that one mans 4-2-3-1 is another mans 4-3-3 and that a 4-4-2 can be a 4-4-1-1 etc etc but… self consistency is a key to informative analysis, and the link and the comment and the picture just do not add up in this instance imho

Everything beyond that i agree, very interesting game. Zamoras maturation is an interesting player case study.

I thought Fulham played like a 4-4-1-1 while Dempsey was in. I didn’t think Dempsey was great but I thought his ability to exploit the space between Scholes/Fletcher and Evans/Vidic was key to Fulham getting back in the game after going down. I wish Duff and Davies had advanced more, as Dempsey often found himself without options after receiving in that space. I thought Dembele had a hard time getting into the game because he was either stuck with United’s backs or checking all the way into midfield and contending with Scholes and Fletcher. He couldn’t seem to find that space that Dempsey used so well, and United took over the game from there. In the end, Fulham were very lucky to come out with a point.

Richard on August 23, 2010 at 10:46 am

I don’t think this is true at all. Although it swung this way and that – most notably in the period of Utd pressure that led to the Hangeland own goal – the game was very even, and Fulham probably had the better of the second half in general. Lucky because Hangeland’s (proper) goal should have been better defended, yes, but not because they were outclassed.

Bollenboer on August 23, 2010 at 12:04 pm

Congratulations with your appointment at the guardian Zonal Marking, or… should we start calling you by your actual name?

It’s well deserved, I’m a fan of your work and always wondered why no other media outlet made use of your services

Thanks very much for the compliments about the Guardian gig (and the ones below). Pleasure to be involved with them, as their football coverage on the website is so good.

And no, I’ve become quite fond of being referred to as ‘ZM’, and the site’s written in a kinda unpersonal way anyway, so being pseudo-anonymous suits me fine!

Anonymous on August 23, 2010 at 12:07 pm

Scholes, Great in possession but didn’t track runners or help Evra…should he have switched with Fletcher?

Mukanya on August 23, 2010 at 1:54 pm

Indeed congratulations!!

Xavier on August 23, 2010 at 2:30 pm

Scholes probably should have been taken off or Carrick brought on to shore up the midfield and provide cover for the defence.

Ollie on August 23, 2010 at 4:49 pm

good to see a more accurate depiction of the game the, rather than the Scholes hype giving to us by the bbc and sky.Also nice to see you on the Guardian about time, after constantly refering to your work in football weekely . congrats

AK on August 23, 2010 at 6:38 pm

Yes, just saw the chalkboards section in the Guardian – congratulations! Well deserved!

Twister on August 25, 2010 at 1:21 am

Ever since Rooney didn’t appeared in the squad, I knew we would play 4-4-2. However, even before the game, I thought that we should have played a 4-3-3. The reason being is that even though Fletcher covers a lot of grounds, he always runs up while Scholes is a defensive liability. Park was there to help the center midfield, but it acutally left the left side of MU weakened with Evra going foward a lot, with pressure of Zamora. I think if we had Anderson fit, he would have solved the problem, but I really do think that Carrick should have played with Scholes and Fletcher. Fulham’s center midfields are strong and with Dempsey occasionally going deep to collect the ball, I thought we needed another man and Carrick would have gave us more possession and more defensive security as you said with Evans pulled out of position. Also we have to take account with Park coming inside would have left us with a 4v2/3 in midfield.

I believe the center foward could have been Hernandez. His pace and great awareness of space would have troubled the likes of Hughes and Hangeland and with the service of Valencia and Scholes would have helped him get into more goalscoring position. He played there well with Mexico and I thought he would have played ok there.